Loading...
1986-06-04 - Plan Commission - Minutes s\ PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING OLD FARM VILLAGE II LEXINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barbara Sheldon called the public hearing to order 7:35 P.M. in the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Ilinois on Wednesday , June 4, 1986. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Barbara Sheldon, Chairman Stephen Goldspiel George Krug Lauron L. Musfeldt Thomas Laske John Z. Gal Rosalie Kaszubowski Dusty Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Gerald Davis Others Present: Richard Piggott, Lexington Development Corporation Village Staff: James Truesdell , Village Planner Gary Glover, Trustee Liaison Richard Skelton, Vllage Attorney Mark Biederwolf, Civil Engineer III . PUBLIC HEARING A. Petition to the Village of Buffalo Grove for a variation to Section 16.50 . 040 .C .3. of the Buffalo Grove Development Ord. by Lexington Development Corporation for Old Farm Village II . Ch. Sheldon read the Public Hearing Notice. She stated the Plan Commission has reviewed this request and has had imput regarding the need for a variance to increase the slope of the detention basin in order to increase the amount of active park land. Mr. Truesdell said that basically, Old Farm Village II has been annexed and zoned. The Village has approved the plans. At the Public Hearing before the Plan Commission, an issue came up from the Park District. The Park District requested additional active park land area for park development. They suggested the slope of the deten- tion basin be greater than the 6 to 1 slope which is required by the Ordinance. The developer, Lexington, agreed and the Engineering Department has agreed that it could be designed at a 4 to 1 side slope. This would give extra land to be developed for the park development purposes. , The Plan Commission recommended approval of the variation that night. Mr. Raysa, Village Attorney previously advised Mr. Truesdell that this portion of the variation was not advertised. Therefore, a public hearing was published for that particular variation and the property owners were also notified. Staff recommended approval to vary the side slope from 6 to 1 to 4 to 1 is recommended. Changing the slope will not present a maintenance problem. There were no members of the public present. The Commissioners had no questions. Mr. Piggott added there was an additional requirement for the bottom slope to be changed from 2% to 1 -1 /2% with under drains. The basin is for detention and for practice soccer and baseball fields. Both issues were discussed at the Public Hearing. Mr. Truesdell described the detention area as a tri-basin with grassed slopes. In response to a question by Com. Goldspiel concerning the effect on the homeowner 's drainage, Mr. Piggott explained the water would have to drain out at the level of the storm sewer. The bottom ground level at the head walls of the storm sewer would actually be about 6" to 8" above the the grade of the storm sewer so that the drains would work. There were no further questions or comments. Chairman Sheldon closed the Public Hearing j-7 APPROVED BY: Barbara Sheldon Chairman PLAN COMMISSION - Public Hearing "A" June 4, 1986 - Page Two PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1986 I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barbara Sheldon called the regular meeting of the Buffalo Grove Plan Commission to order at 10 : 15 P.M. at the Village Hall , 50 Raupp Blvd. on Wednesday, June 4, 1986. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Barbara Sheldon, Chairman Stephen Goldspiel George Krug Lauron L. Musfeldt Thomas Laske John Z. Gal Rosalie Kaszubowski Dusty Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Gerald Davis Others Present: Richard Piggott, Lexington Dev. Corp. Bruce Klefstad, Pres. Klefstad Co. , Inc . Janet M. Johnson, Attorney for Klefstad Schiff Hardin & Waite Walt Erler, Engineer/Arch. for Klefstad John M. Ryan, ASLA for Klefstad Ives/Ryan Group, Inc . J. E. Cotey, Cotey/Necker Properties Homer Reisman, Architect for Mr. Cotey James Truesdell , Village Planner Gary Glover, Trustee Liaison Richard Skelton, Village Attorney Mark Biederwolf, Civil Engineer III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES None IV. COMMITTEE AND LIAISON REPORTS Com. Kaszubowski attended Village Board meeting June 2, 1986: 1 . The Nissan Dealership was approved per the Commission 's recommendation. 2. Referral for B-1 parcel at Southwest corner of Busch and Weiland Rds. ( a portion of Highland Subdivision ) . No discussion. No variation requested. 3. Comprehensive transportation study is being undertaken by the Village to provide information pursuant to Village transportation problems. Ordinance "failed" calling for recapture of funds from developers. Village will undertake the cost of the plan. 4. Park District refused to accept several of the parcels of park land as designated in various subdivision. New Park District Commissioners do not want to accept the property. } Specifically: Lots 14 and 25 in Candlewood Creek Outlot F in Green Knolls Summerset retention Park at Lexington in the Park Lots 9000, 9001 , 9003 in The Villas Mr. Truesdell explained that the Park District basically does not want the prairie parks; or retention areas; or lots which are really bike path connections. The Village Board indicated that these properties were accepted, the Park District has made committments to maintain these properties and feels the Park District should honor these committments. The Village will own and maintain the properties. 6. Village Board approved the resolution indicating use of Tax Increment Financing ( TIF ) for the development of the Town Center. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION Order was changed: A. Old Farm Village II Variation D. Final Plat for Dodd 's Subdivision C . Cotey/Necker Property Workshop D. Klefstad Property A. Old Farm Village II Variation Com. Laskie made the following motion: I recommend to the Village Board of Trustees that the petition for a variation of Sec . 16.50. 040 .C .3. of the Village Code Development Ordinance be approved, pursuant to Old Farm Village II , subject to discussion. Section 16.50 .040 .C .3. requires 6 to 1 side slope. Variation requested is 4 to 1 . Section requires 2% cross slope. Variation requested is 1-1 /2% cross slope. Com. Kasubowski seconded the motion. No Discussion. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Goldspiel Krug Musfeldt Laskie Gal Kaszubowski Rhodes NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to O. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Two D. Final Plat of Subdivision - Dodd 's Subdivision Com. Gal made the following motion: I move the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Dodd Final Plat of Subdivision dated May 19, 1986. Com. Kaszubowski seconded the motion. Discussion: �./ Com. Goldspiel asked if more than one concrete monument is needed? Mr. Truesdell said the Ordinance requires two and the second one is shown on the plat in the upper right hand corner of the plat. Com. Goldspiel asked if the dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 is adequately labled? The length < 200 . 00 ' ) is given, but there is no bearing or angles. Mr. Truesdell said the bearings and angles are required on the outside corners of the plat of subdivision, but not required on each of the lot lines. Com. Goldspiel commented the date is noted in the text, but there is not a date of preparation. Mr. Truesdell said they are trying to have a specific date on the plats, and Mr. Biederwolf agreed to have the date (May 19, 1986 ) added to the Dodd Final Plat. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Goldspiel Krug Musfeldt Laskie Gal Kaszubowski Rhodes NAY - None Motion Passed - 7 to 0 . PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Three C . Cotey/Necker Property Workshop Mr. J. E. Cotey and Mr. Homer Riesman were present. Mr . Truesdell described the petiton for annexation of 6.68 acres of property located on the East side of Milwaukee Avenue on Estonian Lane, generally across from the Corporate Grove Development. It consists of three parcels, two of which are owned by Mr. Cotey and the other is owned by Mr. Willy Necker. The Necker parcel is required for contiguity. There is a residence located on the site. ( The dog-training business is no longer in operation. ) `./ This Necker property will not be developed at this time. The Zoning requested is for the B - 3 District. Mr. Cotey described the proposed business as a Wholesale Furniture Warehouse. He is mainly a Steelcase dealer. The variations being requested generally relate to setbacks. Staff comments were submitted from the Village Engineer and the Public Works Director. Mr. Truesdell reviewed the variations. He added the Village will require a 25 ' landscaped setback from the right-of-way, of Estonian Lane. a & b: There are 20 ' and 30 ' setbacks requested. Normally the Village requires 40 feet of right of way for an indus- trial street, with an additional 25 feet setback. However, there is not sufficient room for the full 40 ft. right-of- way. It would probably be about 30 ft. for the right-of way with several feet of landscaping between right-of-way and parking lot. c : Variation of front yard setback on Milwaukee Avenue. The Village will require 50 feet of right-of-way. There appears to be sufficient room to dedicate 50 feet, but from the right-of-way line, there would only be a few feet to the parking area. d . Should be 30 feet parking setback on North property line, and the parking will be about 5 feet off the North property line. e. Building is shown 20 feet from North property line. Normally there would be a 60 foot building line setback. One problem is that there is a substantial flood plain on this site and the lot is very narrow. The building had to be pushed forward far enough for detention and compensatory storage space located next to the Des Plaines River. The land drains East to the river. Original zoning request for variation was to B - 4. Considering the use, it really fits under the " ' I" classification. Originally, the plans were prepared and presented to Lake County . They meet Lake County 's re- quirements, but not Buffalo Grove 's. No engineering plans have been submitted, but Mr. Kuenkler has indicated that our ordinance requirements could be met if there is enough area for detention . PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Four Estonian Lane is a gravel road and is a dedicated right-of way. Also, a private club is located at Estonian House, East of the site. Beyond that are a few homes. Com . Goldspiel questioned how Lake County could approve the plan when they require 100 foot easements on Milwaukee Ave. Mr . Reisman, Mr. Cotey 's architect, explained that the original drawings were prepared in accordance with Lake County 's zoning ordinances. They were tentatively approved subject to a precise plan, pertaining to water retention and disposal on the site. Mr. Cotey had proceeded to retain an off-site and on-site civil engineering service. Plans were then presented to Lake County. Landscaping and architecture plans were not submitted, but prior to that time the development was in complete compliance with Lake County 's zoning ordinances, with respect to setbacks. The preliminary plans are now being presented to the Buffalo Grove Planning Dept. Mr. Goldspiel commented that it would be difficult for the plan to be brought into compliance with the Buffalo Grove ordinances because of the limitations placed on the amounts which can be varied. How would they meet the compensatory storage requirements and make up the flood plain ( looking at the 100 year flood line ) with such a small green area. Mr. Biederwolf said compensatory storage would be required to meet the ordinance; and the building and parking lot would have to be a foot above high water levels. There are some problems and things would have to be worked out. Mr. Truesdell said Estonian Lane would have to be improved at least up to the driveway of this project. This would include pavement with curbs, driveways, gutters, etc . Ch. Sheldon said the Plan Commission appreciates Mr. Cotey 's desire to come into Buffalo Grove. The business is accept- able, but there is not enough information for the Plan Com. to review at this time. She suggested talking with Staff to determine what can be done. Because there were so many issues to be considered, and so much work to be done, especially on the storm sewers, etc . the project was deferred to a later time. A suggestion was made to take a look at an aerial photo and a topography map to compare the setbacks of surrounding properties. Mr. Cotey said one reason they would like to come . to B.G. is because of the utility system. He indicated he would be happy to work with the Village to solve the problems. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Five Mr. Reisman said they would file a precise plan with land- scaping, irrigation drawings with all the required specifi- cations, but they would like some indication that the Plan Commission is agreeable with the concept. Mr. Goldspiel suggested working up a rough cut concept to see if the plan can be made workable with the B. G. flood plain ordinance, etc . before landscaping drawings, and other plans are presented. Ch. Sheldon agreed. The flood plain ordinance is most important and cannot be varied. Mr. Truesdell will make the necessary appointments with Mr. Kuenkler. Mr. Cotey was thanked for coming to Buffalo Grove with his project. Because the Klefstad people were not ready to present the revised variances, Ch. Sheldon proceeded with the Agenda. VI . Chairman 's Report - None VII . Future Agenda Schedule Mr. Truesdell reminded the Commission there are two more public information meetings on the Comprehensive Plan next week. They will be held at 7:30 P.M. on Monday, June 9th at Willow Grove School Learning Center and Wed. , June 11th in the Pritchett School Multi-purpose Room. Regular Plan Commission meeting is scheduled for June 18th to hold a Public Hearing on the Westchester Estates Development, North of Busch Road and West of Old Farm Village. Another Workshop meeting will be held with Pulte on the Andrews Property. Ch. Sheldon recalled that when Pulte was last here, they were welcomed to have a full Plan Review. The date is June 18th. Mr. Balling is to provide full information about the 60/40 split and the land use according to the Comprehensive Plan. This is the goal and the Plan Commission has been directed to reach it. There will be no June 25th meeting. The date for the formal Public Hearing for the Comprehensive Plan has been scheduled for July 16, 1986. 4.•/ Ch. Sheldon encouraged the Plan Commissioners to attend one of the Comprehensive Plan Workshops. Jim Truesdell does a super job explaining to the public what the Plan Commission has done. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Six • ' V. B. Klefstad Property Mr. Goldspiel made the following motion: I move the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Klefstad Development, as depicted on the Site Plan, dated May 28, 1986; subject to the following: I . Variations to the Zoning Ordinance:* * The proposed setback from Aptakisic Road was not included in the motion. Parking requirements concerning industrial property abutting residential property are to be upheld along the residential property line. Exception: 1 . ( 1 ) Section 17.48. 020 .F.5.c. ( 2) Section 17.48. 020 .F.6.a. ( 3) Section 17.48. 020 .F.6.b. All to be treated as adjoining Industrial Property except where they adjoin Tax Parcel 15-27-200-019; where the full setback requirements of the ordinance for abutting residential property would apply. 2. ( 5 ) Section 17.48. 020 .E. To allow a frontage of less than 50 feet for lots which have a standard width at the setback line, provided that the difference between the width of the setback line and the frontage is accounted for by the detention basin. Discussion. Legal language may be needed. New wording: To allow creation of detention outlots out of Numbered Parcels, other than Lots 17 and 18, where the frontage may be no less than 50 feet; provided that the width of the lot behind the detention area remains as proposed in excess of 100 feet. II . Variations to Development Ordinance: 1 . ( 6 ) Sections 16.20 . 130 .B. and 16.20 . 130 .B.3. Financial security for all bondable public improvements in streets, rights-of-way, and detention areas will be provided prior to commencement to any construction on the project; BUT - Financial security on individual lots will not be required prior to application for building permit. 2. ( 7 ) Section 16.20 . 060 .A.2. Submission of detailed site grading plans to be required at the time of building permit application. . PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Seven 3. ( 8 ) Section 16.40 . 020 .A. To allow completion of all public improvements, including detention areas, within 24 months of the approval of each construction phase. ( 9 ) - Waived. 4. ( 10 ) Section 16.50 . 040 .8.3. To allow cross slope minimums of at least one percent and no underdrains to be required. 5. ( 11 ) Section 16.50 040 .C .4. To allow use of rip rap or incamat on the 2: 1 sloped areas, a minimum pond bottom elevation eight feet below normal water level and no requirement for aeration equipment, provided that these items will be maintained through an owner 's association. 6. ( 12 ) Section 16.50 . 030.D. 17.a. To allow use of open channels where areas of less than 80-acres are to be drained; provided that these areas will be privately maintained through an owner 's association, or individual lot owner; and provided that the developer will endeavor to minimize these channels. 7. ( 13 ) Section 16.50 . 030 .D. 17.b. i and D. 17.b. ii . To waive the requirements of 6 to 1 side slope on open channels; and eight ( 8 ) foot wide pathways running along any open channels. 8. ( 14 ) Section 16.50 . 040 .D. To allow a structure to be located within 25 ft. of a detention facility; but no closer than 15 ft. 9. ( 15 ) Section 16.50. 120. I . 1 .e. To allow parkway trees to be grouped. 10 . ( 16 ) Section 16.50 . 120 .D. 1 . To allow seeding in place of sodding. 11 . ( 17 ) Section 16.50 . 100 .C . and 16.50 . 100 .D. 1 . To allow 600 foot spacing between street light poles, provided that the poles meet height standards as designated by the Village. 12. ( 18 ) Section 16.50 . 070 .D.2. To allow street widths from back of the curb to the back of the curb, on streets other than Aptikisic Road, to be 39 foot and to provide a half right-of-way on Aptikisic Road to a width of 54 feet. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Eight ' r 13. ( 19 ) Section 16.50 . 080 .A. 1 . To allow construction of the sidewalk on Aptakisic Road to be deferred until required by the Village, but no later than completion of the project; and to allow sidewalk only on one side of Barclay Blvd. , to be completed in front of each lot as it is developed. No sidewalks required on streets other than Aptakisic Road and Barclay Blvd. 14. ( 20 ) Section 16.50 . 090 . To require developer to provide eight foot wide bike path easement; graded, but not paved, adjacent to the 100 foot wide storm detention easement as depicted on the Preliminary Plan, III . Flood Plain Ordinance: 1 . ( 21 ) Section 18.40 . 020 Provides that the Village will permit development in the flood plain in accordance with the Engineering Plan, providing that flood heights and stream dis- charges to adjacent properties will not be increased by development in the flood plain. This is further subject to approvals by the Illinois Department of Transportation and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and compliance with Section 1910 .6( a ) of the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program. IV, Developer will provide the Village, prior to Board hearing, with Standards to be used in developing the property. Such Standards to be implemented by Covenant. Com. Musfeldt seconded the motion. Discussion. Com. Laskie stated, "It is ridiculous for a plan to come into a Public Hearing with 21 variances to the Village ordinances. The idea of Ordinances, in the first place, is to give developer 's basic knowledge of the Village Ordinances, and for them to come as close as possible, so that the Village of Buffalo Grove gets developed as planned ." Mr. Laskie added that he takes a look at each plan separately, and does not compare it with any other plan ( i .e. Corporate Grove ) . Mr. Klefstad and his staff did a nice job of presenting the project, but it is ridiculous for the Plan Commission to accept such a plan. Mr. Laskie sees it as a domino effect, where each developer will come in and based on what one developer does or what one person gets, the developer will have control . It sets a bad precedent. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Nine Mr. Goldspiel agreed. Further, he is not satisfied that the standards the Plan Commission wanted out of this development exist. He understands why previous developments have had variances. PUD 's have come in with certain amenities and advantages that could not have been granted under the Ordinance. This is not a basis for allowing variances in this instance. It is not an integrated plan because it is much too conceptual and speculative to support the degree of variation. Roll Call Vote: AYE - Gal Musfeldt Kaszubowski NAY - Krug Laskie Rhodes Goldspiel Motion DENIED - 4 to 3. Questions and comments: Mr. Klefstad asked if there were any other reasons for denial other than the amount of variations. Mr. Goldspiel said he did not get a sense of a cohesive plan to go with the variations. He could accept variations if he understood what the overall plan, or the overall effect was going to be. The Ordinance was recently revised and should not be varied unless there is a real good reason for so doing. He added that the project is the right use for the property, and the plan might be workable, but not at this point. Mr. Laskie stated that developers should look at the Ordinances and not look at what other developers have gotten in the past. The situation is starting to escalate. Buffalo Grove has an excellent Staff, and they have drawn up some "tough" ordinances. Other communities in the area have much tougher ordinances. Some of the variances requested should not have been proposed. If Mr. Klefstad had known how close the vote was going to be, he might not have asked for all of these ( variations ) . How important are they? Ch. Sheldon commented that some of the variances were suggested by the Staff. Com. Laskie repeated his concern that a message is being sent to other developers, that says, do not look at the ordinances, look at what has been developed . They should look at the ordinances and comply, or come close. Also, they should offer something that will offset the variances. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Ten Com. Goldspiel commented on the Staff position, which is, "What can we possibly live with?" One concern is the shape and location of the detention basins: having a lot of little basins all over the place; and varying the depths; and not providing maintenance for them. Staff has said that they checked to see that the number of cubic feet match. The Plan Commission 's obligation is to see that the requirements are met in an accept- able way. Com. Kaszubowski commented, but not in defense of her vote, that three variations were granted because of zoning outside of Buffalo Grove, in the County. Also: 1 . This will never be residential area, and because the B.G. Ordinance is strict, those three variances had to be granted. They are not the developers fault. 2. The developer is going to sell individual lots. The Commission cannot ask the developer to post a performance bond for some- thing he does not know what the cost will be two years later. A variance was necessary. 3. Detailed site grading plans will be submitted separately because the development is not being built at the same time. Other developments are similar, i .e. Corporte Grove. A variance was necessary. 4. Clustering trees is not a big problem. 5. Sidewalks were required by the Commission. The Commission did not grant "stupid" variations. They were all needed to develop this parcel of property because of the type of parcel it was and because the type of development that is being done. If the Commission does not wish to grant variations, Mr. Klefstad should have been told in the beginning. He was told that it was acceptable to build individual lots, now he is being told he cannot have the variations he needs. Either the ordinance must be changed, or the developers told they cannot build on individual lots. Ch. Sheldon pointed out that two variations are always given, and maybe the ordinance needs to be revised: 1 . The rip rap 2. Clustering of trees Mr. Truesdell commented that the ordinance is written strictly and before there were any industrial parks. Sidewalks is another issue that is always granted a variance, in industrial parks. Com. Gal said he concurred with Com. Kaszubowski . He realizes that the developer came in with 21 variations, and that was a big issue. That 's more than has ever been proposed before. It is understandable that a developer looks at a neighboring develop- ment and requests the exact same variations. Corporate Grove was granted a 35 ft. setback and Mr. Klefstad asked for 25 ft. Another issue was because of the residential zoning, and he was under the impression that a lot of the issues were resolved. PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Eleven Com. Musfeldt concurred and noted the flood plain ordinance. For instance, the Commission has to recommend that the developer be allowed to build there. Com. Goldspiel agreed there is no problem with the variations that were mentioned by Com. Kaszubowski . If a development is going to come in lot by lot, some have been located on Lake/Cook where they have come in without so many variations. Ch. Sheldon commented that at least seven of the requested variations are necessary because of county zoning. Mr. Erler said that regarding the number of retention ponds, Buffalo Grove 's ordinances require holding more water in this area than the neighboring villages. The flow should all be the same. Com. Goldspiel said this was not the time to discuss these matters. He moved to adjourn. Com. Laskie seconded the motion. Ms. Johnson asked what vote was necessary for the Village Board to approve the development? Mr. Truesdell responded that for Annexation approval a vote of 2/3 is necessary. X. ADJOURNMENT Ch. Sheldon asked for a voice vote to adjourn. AYE - Unanimous response NAY - None The meeting was adjourned at 12: 05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, r� n , Shirley Bates, Recording Secretary ( sub ) APPROVED BY: Barbara Sheldon Chairman PLAN COMMISSION June 4, 1986 - Page Twelve • PLAN COMMISSION VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS WEDNESDAY, June 4, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING Klefstad Properties, Inc . I . CALL TO ORDER Chairman Barbara Sheldon called the Public Hearing to order at 8: 00 P.M. at the Municipal Building, 50 Raupp Boulevard, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, on Wednesday, June 4, 1986. II . ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Barbara Sheldon, Chairman Stephen Goldspiel George Krug Lauron L. Musfeldt Thomas Laske John Z. Gal Rosalie Kaszubowski Dusty Rhodes Commissioners Absent: Gerald Davis Others Present: Bruce, Klefstad, President of Klefstad Properties Inc . Janet. M. Johnson, Attorney for Klefstad, Schiff Hardin & Waite. Walter Erler, Engineer/Arch. for Klefstad John M. Ryan, ASLA for Klefstad with Ives/Ryan Group, Inc . Staff Present: James Truesdell , Village Planner Gary Glover, Trustee Liaison Richard Skelton, Village Attorney Mark Biederwolf, Civil Engineer III . PUBLIC HEARING B. Petition for Annexation, Zoning in the I ( Industrial ) Zoning District and Preliminary Plan Approval with variations to Village Ordinances, per Exhibit A. Chairman Sheldon read the Public Hearing Notice and stated the Plan Commission has reviewed the proposed development at pre- vious workshop sessions. The Commission has had some policy imput into the shaping, or the improving of the development. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the developer to officially present his proposal to the Plan Commission and to provide the public with its right to observe and be apprized of the work of the Village Plan Commission. Certain local public agencies have been informed of the scope and the details of this development. Some of these agencies might also present statements here tonight. Questions and discus- sion will follow the presentation. AGENDA: 1 . Presentation by Developer 2. Presentations by Agencies and Groups 3. Questions and Discussion by Plan Commissioners 4. Questions and Discussion by the Public The following people were sworn in: 1 . Bruce Klefstad, Pres. of Klefstad Co. , Inc . 2. Janet M. Johnson, Attorney for Klefstad Co. Inc . ; Sciff Hardin and Waite 3. Walt Erler, Engineer/Architect for Klefstad Co. 4. John M. Ryan, Landscape Architect for Klefstad Co. Ives/Ryan Group, Inc . Li Mr. Klefstad made an opening statement and described the proposed development which he hopes will be zoned and annexed to B.G. He proposed the following procedure: 1 . Ms. Johnson - Variation requests 2. Mr. Ryan - Landscaping review 3. Mr. Erler - Site development engineering 4. Mr. Klefstad will summarize and questions will be answered by the group of representatives 1 . Ms. Johnson described the property which Klefstad Co. , Inc . hopes to annex to Buffalo Grove. Klefstad Co. is the contract purchaser under the contract with the existing owners, whose identity is in the official Village records. The tract of land is a 106 acre parcel located on Aptakisic Rd. and West of Milwaukee Avenue in unincorporated Lake County. Currently, the property uses that surround the proposed project are the Corporate Grove Development, adjacent to the South. It is a similarly zoned industrial development with office/ warehouse type complexes. Along the Southeastern boundary, there is a dry landfill being conducted. Immediately to the East, there is 1 resident on a lot of approximately 515 feet in length. The remaining property to the East is primarily vacant, or is a gravel quarry and pit. To the West, there is a Nursery/Greenhouse in operation and vacant agricultural land. To the North, across Aptakisic Road, are several residences. The character of the neighborhood is consistent with the kind of development Klefstad Co. is proposing. However, the zoning classifications of the adjoining property, include residential zoning within Lake County: Suburban residential ; suburban estates; agricultureal purposes; and I ( Buffalo Grove ) . A list of variances, Exhibit A, was distributed. Ms. Johnson read each variance and clarified each one. She concluded with the statement that the property is designed to be office/warehouse, not residential . PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Two 2. Mr. Ryan distributed a conceptual landscape plan - Ex. B and he described the initial proposal for the entrance area, off of Aptakisic Road. A combination of landscaping and a low level , masonry wall , monument will identify the development. The various plant materials were listed and described. On Barclay Blvd. a similar V-shaped monument with landscaping is also proposed. The ponds on the development will be landscaped in groupings of diciduous trees and ornamental trees. This will give a natural feel to the ponds. The plant list is representative of v the materials which will be used throughout the development. Final , detailed drawings will be submitted individually as the lots are developed. Finally, the street scape was described. The quantity of trees will be in accordance with the Village Forester 's requirements, but the developer would prefer to cluster them along the two major roads, to give a more park-like setting. This will also make it easier to integrate the street scape with the landscaping of the individual lots, and give a better overall effect. 3. Mr. Erler, Techinical and Civil Engineer, presented the site plans. He described the flood plain proposition and the variations which are being requested. The excavation of the 100 foot required easement, and the flood way runoff has been discussed with IDOT, and they are ready to issue a permit. Sufficient compensatory storage is provided. Mr. Erler explained the reason for requesting a 2 ft. sewer cover. If a 3 ft. cover is required, the land will be bermed. But because the land will be flat, and the storm sewers be quite large, a 2 ft. cover with a terraced parkway would be better. Mr. Kuenkler 's report requests additional area to be allocated for detention ponds. Mr. Erler agreed and said these plans would be finalized after the flood areas are determined and designed. 4. Mr. Klefstad summarized and said they hope to bring a high quality industrial park to Buffalo Grove. Many of the varia- tions being requested are similar to the variatons which have been granted previously, i .e. Corporate Grove. Landscaping is designed to compliment all the common ownership ponds, so that when driving along Barclay blvd, trees and water will be seen in an attractive appearance. The quality of the I design speaks to the quality of the entire business park. Klefstad will be building some buildings, but the main objective of the plan is to sell lots to 3rd parties. There are owner 's protective covenants, and an owner 's association, that will con- trol the architecture and landscaping. The package is being designed for high quality. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Three Mr. Klefstad presented an architectural drawing of a building they are planning to construct at the Southern portion of the property. It will be used for light industrial business. It will be from 50 ,000 to 80 , 000 square feet with space for 4 tenant spaces of approsimately 20 , 000 square feet each. The building will be constructed if warm face brick and will have truck docks on the rear or side elevations. Each tenant would have truck docks. Doors and windows will be thermoglas with aluminum frames. Doors and windows will be set back to create a shadow effect. There will be ponds on the lot and landscaping was described. This concluded the preliminary summary. Ch. Sheldon commended the developer for a very complete presen- tation. There were no agency or group represented. Mr. Truesdell had nothing to add to his memo, and stated that most of the requested variations are consistent with Corporate Grove. There are some requests that Staff does not recommend: 1 . Setback on Barclay Blvd. #17.48. 020 .F.5.a. Ordinance requirement of 50 feet; and, the requirement on Aptakisic Rd. of 35 feet, not be varied. 2. Three foot covers over storm sewers. #16.50. 030 .D. 13 Mr. Kuenkler would not approve two foot covers. This variation was not granted Corporate Grove. 3. Mr . Kuenkler memo also recommends the 8 ft. wide sidewalk, if not through the development, at least on Aptakisic Road. 4. Regarding the requested bond variation, Mr. Kuenkler said this variation was granted to Corporate Grove. Bonds were required at the Commerce Center and he ( D.K. ) said it would be desirable to get the bond. Plan Commission Discussion: Com. Kaszubowski asked for clarification of the setback variation ( #2 ) : Ms. Johnson said there is no requirement where a property abuts anything except residential district. They have requested 15 ft. distance between the lot line and parking facility; and a waiver for the remainder of the property. Com. Kaszubowski asked for the proposed variation of 100 ft. frontage ( #5 ) be explained: Mr. Erler described the proposed ` J detention areas, and added that they could specify that "no . lot, unless it had a detention requirement, would be less than 100 feet." Com. Kaszubowski asked if it would be required to post a bond ( #6 ) for the entire development: Mr. Truesdell said Yes, but in practice, additional bonds are required on a lot by lot basis. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Four Mr. Klefstad added that they would be willing to bond all the public right-of-way improvements, underground, pavements, pond excavations, and site grading and everthing that is involved with the construction of Barclay Blvd. and Asbury. Because they do not know about the future buildings, they are asking that the bonds be delayed until the lots are developed. Com. Kaszubowski asked about the pathway for maintenance vehicles ( #13 ) . If these areas are not maintained, what would the Village do without proper access? Mr. Klefstad said they are talking about a "grass" ditch at the rear lot line which could be reached with lawn mowers. The slope would not be steep. The Association would enforce the upkeep of all common areas. Com. Kaszubowski asked the reason for the 600 ft. maximum spacing between street lights ( #17 ) : Mr. Erler explained this is consistent with Corporate Grove. The poles will be higher. Mr. Truesdell added that the quality of lighting may be better than what is required. Mr. Erler said this was requested by Staff, not Klefstad Companies, Inc . Com. Kaszubowski asked about the cost of constructing a bike path ( #20 ): Mr. Truesdell said it would be bituminous material . The cost was not known. Com. Kaszubowski 's last comment was that sidewalks were needed, especially along the roadway. She would agree to one side of the street, and added that this ordinance should be enforced. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Five Com. Musfeldt asked about the landscaping at the entrance on Aptakisic Road. The distance does not seem to scale out what is proposed. It looks to be approximately 60 feet. Ms. Johnson said the landscaping is not meant to be along the whole length of Aptakisic Road. The distance is about 100 ft. Mr. Ryan said this a conceptual plan and the landscaping may have to be condensed or broadened, depending on how Lot #1 is developed. Com. Musfeldt commented that he would not want to see any less landscaping than is shown. It should be not less than 160 ft. to 175 ft. and he would accept the conceptual aspect if the basic footprint is as shown. Ms. Johnson said they have submitted a conceptual plan and it is not meant to be the final plan. Specific drawings will be submitted when Lot #1 is developed. Mr. Klefstad assured the Plan Commission that the entrance will be conform in plant material , quality, specification and scope. It would be hard to make a commitment at this time. It was their understanding that the Commission wanted this type of plan. Ms. Sheldon asked if the entrance landscaping and signage will be put into place, as part of the beginning construction; before the lots are developed? Com. Klefstad said as much as possible, the landscaped entrances and pond treatments will be put in. Their timetable call for this to be done in the fall of 1986. Ms. Johnson added they have requested 35 ft. parking setback only and the actual building setback will be 50 ft. If there is land- scaping there, there could be no parking. Com. Musfeldt said he was concerned about the comment made by the Lake County Highway Dept. of a suggested 54 ft. right-of-way. Which ordinances will be required? What is meant by the #2 variation requesting variation of the parking set back? Mr. Truesdell explained the zoning ordinance would allow 15 ft. but most of the area is drainage easement. The abutting property will probably not be residential, and the nature of an industrial park makes the variation acceptable. Com. Musfeldt asked for further clarification of the construction if the detention ponds which would diminish the front footage. Mr. Erler took Lot #20 as an example. The lot is 235 ft. across, and appears so, but if the length of the detention area is sub- tracted, the legal distance is only 70 feet. It is only a legal technicality. The lots will appear as they should. Com. Laskie commented that the variances are massive. He wanted assurance that the common areas be maintained. He was against the 35 ' variance abutting Aptakisic Road, because the road will become a major road. Buildings would be too close to the road. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Six Ms. Johnson explained the Lake County 54 ' requirement would be 108 ft. width for the road and the pavement is not likely to go all the way to the right-of-way. They are talking about 35 ft. from the right-of-way. Approximately, there could be a total of 49 ft. of green space, assuming the road was widened to 4 lanes. ( 35 ft. variance plus 14 ft. is the road is 80 ft. wide ) The 49 ' would be to the edge of the parking lot. Barclay Blvd. is a collector street. Com. Laskie said he would like to see the residential property protected with a 30 ft. buffer along the 350 ft. of existing property line to include the parking setback. ( #2 ) . He recalled that previously the Commission was concerned with protecting the residential area. Mr. Klefstad commented that the closest a building could be is 45 ft. on Lot 1 . In other workshops, he understood that this is what the Commission wanted, and they are meeting the code requirements. Ch. Sheldon commented that it was her understanding they the developer had agreed to exceed the code requirements. They were not anticipating any variances along the residential area. And they were expecting some extra screening, either berming or landscaping, etc . This is causing some confusion. This can be discussed in the regular meeting. Mr. Klefstad suggested further discussion and determination of the legal property line. Com. Laskie asked Mr. Truesdell what Staff had intended for ( #5 ) the 100 ft. minimum frontage. Did that include the idea of a detention basin? Mr. Truesdell said in the original I-District, they did not anticipate putting dentention on a separate lot. It does meet the intent of the ordinance. The width is the same in appearance. Regarding #8, Mr. Truesdell said this variation was granted to Corporate Grove, and it has not been a problem to his knowledge. Ref. #9 -Com. Laskie is against the variance for minimum storm sewer covers. Mr. Erler agreed to waive this variance request. They will keep the storm sewer 3' below surface. Ref. #10 - Com. Laskie is concerned about water standing in an area which is to be maintained by the owner. What about mosquito abatement? With no underdrains, will there be standing water at times? Mr. Erler said the Corps of Engineers has requested that the vegetation in certain areas be kept beneficial for animals, such as the habitat wood ducks. They would not want to keep these areas wet, and can cut down the slope. The Corps of Engineers wants to keep some wet lands. Mr. Truesdell said this happened at Corporate Grove also. It has to be done per the Corps of Engineers. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Seven Ref . #12 - Com. Laskie asked that the variation request be changed to include "or owners" referring to maintenance. Mr. Erler responded that they have requested the use of open channels only where absolutely necessary. He described their proposed engineering. Corporate Grove Dr. is 37 feet wide and Busch Pkwy is 39 ft. Com. Laskie discussed the possibility of the train station going in. The Corporate Grove does not have sidewalks, but Com. Laskie would like to have some sidewalk system. Com. Gal was interested in the estimated total development time, from start to finish. Mr. Erler said they expect to construct the street, sewer and water, and detention facilities within 5 months; and sell out is based on a projection of 36 to 48 mos. or it could be up to 60 months. Com. Gal commented that one of his major issues is the tremendous number of variances for one development. He would like to see the building/parking set back line on Aptakisic Road maintained at 50 ft. The building/parking set back line on Barclay Blvd. to be equivalent to Corporate Grove, which is 35 feet. The 30 foot distance between lot line and denoted residential property line, which would be 30 foot parking and 60 foot building line. The frontage issue, including detention and adjacent to detention areas, to be a minimum of 50 feet. Mr. Erler and Ms. Johnson agreed that a pond will be between two lots. This was fully described. Detention ponds would be out- lots. They would be deeded to and maintained by the association. It is unlikely that two ponds would be close together. The Corps of Engineers and IDOT would have to give the final approval . Com. Gal commented on financial security ( #6 and #8 ). It should be stipulated that only items such as, roads, sewers, etc . would all be up front. Items such as parking lots, and items relating directly to individual lots would not be require financial security. Mr. Klefstad agreed to be more specific . Com. Gal had stated it accurately. Com. Gal was concerned about the ponds, i .e. bugs. Mr. Truesdell said visual inspections will be conducted to see if there are any maintenance problems. Com. Gal also wanted to have the sidewalk on Aptakisic and at least on one side of Barclay Blvd. He would like to have funds l estimated and donated to the Village for a future bike path. V PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Eight Com. Rhodes said the sidewalk on Aptakisic Rd. is important; so • . is the sidewalk on Barclay Blvd. It will become a short cut. When will the owner 's association be formed? Mr. Klefstad said it will not be formed until 45% to 50% is developed. The development corporation will maintain the property until the association is formed; and will also main- tain all undeveloped lots. They do not want to create a nuisance. Com. Krug agreed with the need for sidewalks on Aptakisic Road and Barclay Blvd. as well as a bike path. Com. Goldspiel agrees with the other commissioners with regard to sidewalks, and the setbacks. He asked about the conceptual concepts. He agrees with the proposed use and the character of the locality. He is concerned with the standards proposed. It has been said that the reason the developments in Buffalo Grove are so successful is because the Village demands high standards. The Village Board has requested that this development meets this high standard. However, the standards are not specified and Com. Goldspiel would like to be able to compare this development with the others. The Plan Commission must report to the Board. Mr. Klefstad responded that they are drafting two things: 1 . Preliminary annexation agreement 2. Covenants, with landscaping and signage They did not understand that those documents must be brought to the Plan Commission. They have testified to the quality in a general way, but if the commission wants more specifics, what? The landscaping has been described, as well as the type of build- ings they are going to build. Third party lot buyers would have to submit specifications for architectural review and site development plans to the association for approval . The standards upon which judgements would be made are subjective, and are not well defined. Typical warehouse buildings are of greater height, with different wall materials ( other than concrete ) and some may even be metal siding ( as seen at Corporate Grove ) . Mr. Truesdell said he had given Ms. Johnson copies of the Corpor- ate Grove papers, with the suggestion that their project be similar. They have indicated that they are modifiying the papers to their specific needs, and that their plans are similar. Mr. Klefstad said they have reviewed the covenants being referred to with Mr. Truesdell . Some do not apply. Com. Goldspiel added that specifics will be necessary for the Appearance Commission 's and the Village Board 's review. He would not want to have Quonset hut types of buildings. Mr. Klefstad could not list specifics at this time. Their product will be similar to what independent lot buyers at Corporate Grove are building. More warehouse types are expected. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Nine With respect to Landscaping, Mr. Ryan has submitted the concept, • and Mr. Klefstad said the landscaping will be similar to or greater than Corporate Grove. Com. Goldpiel asked about the floodway . When it is narrowed and deepened will there be a place for the bike path. This area is on the proposed master plan as part of the green belt system. Mr. Erler described their plans. In general , the floodway will follow the high water level , and there will be a 4 ft. dry slope. The 8 foot bike path will be on one side of the boundary, on top of the top of the floodway. Mr. Erler described the drainage areas on the site plan. There will be a dry-water flow, so the trough is not wet on the sides. He followed the flow of each system ( A, B and C ) , the detention ponds and said there is controlled flow. In order to control the run-off and decrease the size of the storm sewers, the water will be drained slower than it would naturally drain into the storm sewers. The detention ponds will act as inlets to the storm sewer syster. Water will not be held in storm sewers. There is a control element at the bridge which decreases the flow of water at the proper rate. Com. Goldspiel would like to see fewer ponds, because of the maintenance. Can they be combined? Should it be more of a water course? Mr. Klefstad said it was his impression from the workshop meetings, that more ponds would be better. Mr. Erler commented that he has encouraged more ponds. They can be given more shape ( curves, instead of rectangles ) and some additional landscaping might be needed. In response to Com. Goldspiel 's question if the ponds, because they do not meet the ordinance requirement, the number, location and design of the ponds, will be a problem, Mr. Mark Biederwolf, Civil Engineer, responded that they would require them to be deeper and have more water. If the detention is provided, the number of ponds makes no different. Ch. Sheldon noted that the Corps of Engineers also suggested the dry ponds be deeper and have more wet land. There are wet ponds there. The Corps of Engineers has asked for a total of 25 acres total . Mr. Erler said there are different levels of quality of wet land. Other areas can be filled. Wet lands are not for standing water. Mr. Truesdell commented that they would have to meet the Corps of Engineer 's requirements. He is not familiar with this type of situation. Ch. Shelden suggested that Staff be provided with copies of any documents from the Corps of Engineers for the Village Board presentation. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Ten Mr. Erler said he has been meeting with all the agencies. He has filed reports with the IEPA, Corps of Engineers, with IDOT, and with Lake County Soil and Conservation. It is very difficult to get these agencies to move. He has been waiting for answers. Mr. Klefstad said he has established "comfort levels" concerning these issues, and he is confident that we can develop the pro- perty in accord with the requirements of the Village, IDOT, the Corps ( of Engineers ) . Permits are required from all agencies. If the requirements are acceptable with IDOT, they are accept- able with the Village of Buffalo Grove. If the problems cannot be worked out, they would have to drop the project. Some outside agencies control these issues. IDOT does the hard engineering and B. G. follows this engineering. Mr. Klefstad is comfortable that solutions have been described and mutual agreements can be reached. Com. Goldspiel concluded with the statement that going North, the flood plain situation is greater and there will be growing areas of detention. He suggested the study of the master plan include a sub-chapter on wet lands. He also commented that Sections 17 and 18 be re-worded, because they do not say what is meant. No additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. Ch. Sheldon thank the audience for their patience and asked if there were any questions and comments? There were NONE. Trustee Gary Glover said the Village Board would be interested in active use of the detention area. Could areas B and C be dry areas, so they could be used for such things as industrial soft ball � lea ues etc . leagues, Mr. Klefstad made a closing statment. He thanked the Plan Commission for their consideration and interest. Regarding the areas of concern which have been addressed by several members: 1 . Sidewalks on Barclay Blvd. - They still take the same position as they did at the last Workshop. They were under the impression that only the sidewalk on Aptakisic Road were an issue. If the sidewalk on Barclay Blvd. is not used, the money would be wasted. When the area is developed, the curbs would have to be cut through the sidewalk. Can this be a future issue to be guaranteed by the association or by Klefstad Properties, or by Mr. Klefstad himself? They could be put in without Village expense, at the time they would be required. 2. If sidewalks are not required in Corporate Grove, and they are required for Klefstad, would they not be open ended? It is unlikely that they would be used because parking is not permitted on the streets, and people would be unlikely to use the sidewalk. PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Eleven 3. Regarding the public transportation issue, if there is • pedestrian traffic , there would be a use. 4. Regarding sidewalks on Aptakisic Road, they would agree to put up the money to put them in in the future when they are needed. If Aptakisic Road is widened, the sidewalks could be lost. Sidewalks would have to be replaced, and this would be an unnecessary expense. Mr. Truesdell , after talking with Mr. Biederwolf, commented that at the Commerce Center, sidewalks were required on one side of the street, except on Armstrong. Sidewalks on Lexington Drive are going in lot by lot as they are developed. That would eliminate the issue of putting in the sidewalk and then having to rip it out. The down side of this proposal is that if one lot goes undeveloped for ten years, there is a missing link. The Commerce Center is an industrial park on Lake/Cook Road and the lots are smaller. Ch. Sheldon would probably recommend sidewalks be on one side of Barclay Blvd. and the details would have to be worked out. Sidewalks would be a public improvement and the bond would be required. The recommendation would require sidewalks subject to the approval of the Engineering Dept. and delineation by the the Village Attorney. Regarding Mr. Laskie 's question regarding parking set back, it was recommended that the description be changed to match the legal description of the property ( not 350 feet ) . Mr. Klefstad again thanked the Commission for their time and added that they hope to bring in a quality product. Ch. Sheldon closed the public hearing at 10: 00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Shirley Bates Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Barbara Sheldon Chairman PLAN COMMISSION Public Hearing - B. June 4, 1986 - Page Twelve